AH UPDATE
p
v\ \\
-------
EPA REGIONS
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Solid Waste Program
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
617-223-5775
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Solid Waste Section
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
212-264-0503
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Solid Waste Program
6th and Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-587-9377
U.S. EPA, Region 4
SoBd Waste Program
345 Courtland St.. N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
404-881-3016
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Solid Waste Program
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, II 60604
312-353-2197
U.S. EPA, Region 6
Solid Waste Section
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, TX 75270
214-767-5734
U.S. EPA. Region 7
Solid Waste Section
1735 Baltimore Ave.
Kansas City, MO 64108
816-374-3307
U.S. EPA, Region 8
Solid Waste Section
1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
303-837-2221
U.S. EPA, Region 9
Solid Waste Program
215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-556-4606
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Solid Waste Program
12006th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-1260
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
AN UPDATE
Presented October 16,1978
to the American Public Works Association
by
Steffen W. Plehn
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency has experienced
both progress and problems in implementing the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. As most of you are
well aware, the main purpose of RCRA is to assure that solid
wastes are managed so as to prevent damage to public health
and the environment. In recent months, events at Love Canal
and elsewhere have made the necessity for such assurance
tragically clear. The objectives of the Act are:
--regulation of hazardous wastes from the point of generation
through disposal—from the cradle to the grave,
—improvement of disposal practices for all other wastes
to meet environmental and health standards, and
—promotion of resource recovery and conservation as the
preferred waste management approaches.
The recent incidents have underlined the critical
nature of these objectives and have made us realize how much
remains to be done in order to achieve them.
-------
To bring the objectives into reality, EPA must first
develop the basic regulatory standards and guidelines called
for in the Act. The focus will then fall upon State and
local governments, which will have the task of applying the
standards with Federal support in the form of financial and
technical assistance.
At present, seven sets of hazardous waste regulations
are in various stages of preparation under Subtitle C of
RCRA. They set standards for identifying which wastes are
hazardous, for tracking the wastes, and ensuring that hazardous
waste management facilities are operated so they will not
cause damage to health or the environment. Three of the
regulations have been formally proposed in the Federal
Register: the transportation standards, regulations on
notification of hazardous waste management activities to EPA
or authorized States, and guidelines for State programs. The
remaining regulations in this series will be proposed around
the first of the year.
Although we have made substantial progress,
development of the hazardous waste regulations is taking
longer than the 18 months specified in the Act. There is a
question as to how realistic these deadlines were in the
first place. Beyond that, the task assigned to us is extremely
complex technically, administratively, and legally. The
task is further complicated by the fact that EPA has now
begun to integrate its various regulatory programs.
-------
For example, the permit system we are setting up for hazardous
waste management facilities will be integrated with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System under the
Clean Water Act. This is obviously a desirable integration
that should significantly reduce the regulatory burden, but
it has magnified our task.
A highly encouraging aspect of the hazardous waste
program is the anticipated extent of State implementation;
18 States have recently enacted or perfected their own
hazardous waste legislation, and we currently expect about
40 States to apply and qualify, at least for interim authorization,
to operate the program. Federal grants to States for development
of authorized hazardous waste regulatory programs has increased
from $3.4 million in fiscal year 1978 to $15 million in
fiscal 1979. In States that do not obtain authorization,
EPA must administer the Federal regulations.
The criteria for land disposal of wastes not in the
"hazardous" category were proposed in February of this year.
Because of the very broad definition of "solid waste" in the
law, these criteria have wide applicability, covering not
only solids but also sludges and liquids. At least 150,000
landfills for municipal solid waste; sludge disposal sites;
and pits, ponds, and lagoons will be subject to the criteria.
The proposed criteria, which are required under Subtitle
D, cover protection of water and air quality, protection of
-------
environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, requirements
to be met in applying sludge or other waste to food-chain
crop lands, control of disease vectors, and safety measures.
We have received many excellent comments on the proposed
criteria and are now in the process of analyzing the comments
and considering revisions. We expect to issue the criteria
in final form by next summer.
The final criteria will be the minimum standards
against which States will compare all existing disposal
facilities. Those that do not meet the criteria will be
included as open dumps in an inventory that EPA must publish.
Such facilities are to be either closed or upgraded under
State-established compliance schedules that do not exceed 5
years beyond the date of publication of the inventory. The
criteria will also serve as standards to be achieved by all
new disposal facilities.
The one-year period allowed in the law for evaluating
all disposal facilities is now widely acknowledged to be
inadequate. Such a time frame is precluded by the number of
facilities and the definitive technical determinations that
will have to be made if the evaluations are to serve as the
basis for possible enforcement actions. The present plan is
to have each State phase its evaluations according to priorities
based on the potential impacts of facilities on health and
the environment, the availability of State regulatory powers,
-------
and availability of Federal and State resources.
Each State's phasing of the inventory process will be
an important part of its Solid Waste Management Plan, which
must be approved by EPA to qualify the State for Federal
financial assistance under Subtitle D. According to that
subtitle, the plan must provide for the identification of
State, local, and regional responsibilities for solid waste
management; the encouragement of resource recovery and
conservation; and the application and enforcement of environ-
mentally sound disposal practices. All solid waste must be
disposed of in an environmentally sound manner or utilized
for resource recovery. State solid waste management planning
has been going on at least since 1966, and many States have
gone far in the development of their programs, particularly
with regard to disposal of municipal solid waste. RCRA,
however, assigns a much wider scope and explicit national
direction to this activity.
Guidelines establishing the requirements for State
plans and recommending methods to meet those requirements
were proposed on August 28 under the title, Guidelines for
Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management
Plans. In addition to the main categories of requirements
that I have mentioned, the guidelines include requirements
for coordination with other Federal programs and requirements
for public participation in planning, regulatory development,
and the permitting of facilities. I am sure these guidelines
-------
are of direct interest to many of you; we hope you will
review the proposed version and comment on it if you have
not already done so.
Federal financial assistance for State planning and
implementation, including the inventory process, is expected
to total approximately $11.2 million in fiscal 1979.
Major technical assistance to State and local governments
is now conducted through the Technical Assistance Panels
Program. Each EPA Regional Office has available a panel of
Federal, State, and local government employees and contractors
capable of assisting in all areas of solid waste management.
As of July 31 of this year, 195 requests for assistance were
handled through the Panels. Since the program reached its
full capability only in the last couple of months, we expect
its activities in 1979 to be far more extensive.
An important feature of the Panels program is the
"peer-matching" component. The APWA, as well as five other
associations of State and local officials, is assisting in
this aspect of the program. Through peer-matching, officials
experienced in handling particular problems advise their
peers facing similar problems in other cities or States.
For example, this past summer, when Wyoming County,
West Virginia, requested consultation for land disposal
-------
problems, APWA and the National Association of Counties
arranged for solid waste officials from Lane County, Oregon,
and the State of Virginia to visit Wyoming County for two
days to review the problems and offer advice. The consulting
officials were particularly knowledgeable about land disposal
in areas with similar conditions. They offered a series of
recommendations that should be helpful to the county in
developing a sound solid waste disposal plan. Another
example is a match arranged by the National League of Cities
for officials of Helena, Montana. Helena was interested in
establishing a program for separate collection of newspapers.
Since Madison, Wisconsin, has a successful separate collection
program, a visit to Madison was arranged and paid for. The
visitors from Helena spent two days observing operations and
discussing their own situation with Madison program managers.
Subsequently, Helena established its own highly successful
program. So far this year, 70 peer matches have been arranged,
and interest is growing in this mechanism for sharing know-
how among States and communities.
In both the TA Panels Program and guidance on State
planning, resource recovery and conservation constitute an
important focus. As I noted at the start, the aim is to
establish these approaches as the preferred means of solid
waste management. The major new initiative in this area is
the program of financial assistance for the development of
-------
urban resource recovery projects, as announced in the
President's Urban Policy Message of March 27, 1978. Urban
areas will be eligible for assistance for all "front-end"
steps leading to the establishment of resource recovery
plants, source separation programs, and projects involving
co-disp9sal of sludge and municipal solid waste. Inadequate
planning and development have led to numerous failures in
resource recovery implementation. By enabling cities to do
thorough feasibility studies and obtain enough expert consultants
and capable staff, we believe the success rate will be much
improved.
We expect that funds for this program will be available
at the rate of $15 million a year, beginning in fiscal year
1979. Forty to fifty grants will probably be awarded this
fiscal year. The solicitation for proposals is scheduled for
October, and we would encourage all urban areas with a
commitment to resource recovery to consider applying. The
criteria for selection of grantees will emphasize: the
potential value of resource recovery in reducing the area's
land disposal problems; factors conducive to success, such
as control of the waste supply of the area and the backing
of key officials? the potential for aiding economic distress
in the urban area; and the amount of prior progress toward
resource recovery.
Eligibility for funding is not limited to large cities,
but under the selection criteria the major portion of the
funds will probably go to jurisdictions of at least 50,000
-------
population. Under present plans the aid will go primarily
to agencies with clear responsibility for implementation,
as designated in the State planning process under Subtitle
D.
To maximize the chances for success of the projects
selected for assistance, EPA will closely monitor them and
•provide guidance. The TA Panels will be utilized. The
States will be encouraged to provide additional support. I
should note that Federal assistance involving such a high
level of interaction with the recipient has recently been
officially labeled "cooperative agreements" in preference to
"grants." We will be using the new term in referring to
resource recovery development assistance from now on.
A related activity that some of you may already be
familiar with is the Resource Recovery Implementation Seminar
which we have been giving around the country. This past
year we presented the two-day seminar in six cities to
approximately 1,000 people. The seminar has been very well-
received, and I believe it provides an excellent orientation
to implementation of resource recovery, both through mixed-
waste processing and source separation. It is regularly
updated to reflect the current state of technology. In case
any of you are interested in attending, the next three
seminars will be in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on December 12
and 13; in San Antonio on January 23 and 24; and in Nashville
on February 27 and 28. There will be one in Los Angeles in
-------
the late spring, but the date has not yet been set.
Of course, the status of resource recovery and conservation
is affected by a lot more than planning and technology.
Economic conditions, various national policies, and other
aspects of our society can encourage or deter these practices.
As mandated by RCRA, the interagency Resource Conservation
Committee has been reviewing a number of Federal policies,
existing and proposed, that may affect the rates at which we
utilize, recover, and dispose of materials. The Committee
has published reports on beverage container deposits and .the
concept of the solid waste disposal charge—a tax on products
contributing to the post-consumer waste stream. Recommendations
on these and other issues will be included in the Committee's
final report to Congress and the President next spring.
EPA's work in research, development, and demonstrations is
being expanded to fill in the gaps in knowledge about
damage mechanisms of hazardous and other wastes and to
improve technology for treatment, disposal, and resource
recovery. This work gives essential support to development
of regulations and to technical assistance. Some examples
of projects underway are: studies of water and air around
disposal facilities to determine the effectiveness of the
technology; evaluations of materials that may be used for
lining land disposal sites; studies of methods for recovering,
recycling, and detoxifying hazardous wastes; demonstrations
of sludge composting in Bangor, Maine, and of methane recovery
10
-------
from landfills in Mountain View, California; and detailed
evaluations of commercial-scale resource recovery systems.
Economic analysis is an integral part of all these projects.
Finally I would like to comment on a less traditional
but equally vital part of the program , the public participation
and education activities. EPA and the States are required
to provide for, encourage, and assist participation by the
public in the development of all regulations and programs
under RCRA. I think we have been quite successful in doing
so. About 125 public meetings have been held across the
country on every major aspect of the program, and we have
distributed successive drafts of the regulations to all
interested persons. The information and views thus elicited
are adding greatly to the quality of the regulations. In
addition, the widespread participation has helped to focus
public attention on solid waste problems and what can be
done about them.
The requirements for public participation in State and
local programs assisted under RCRA are being specified in
guidelines applicable to those programs.
We see public education as an extremely important
associated activity. It is the basis for informed, constructive
participation and for the public support we must have to
achieve successful implementation of the RCRA programs at
the State and local levels. Over the next three years, our
11
-------
educational program will include a series of regional conferences
followed by a national conference on the implementation of
RCRA, with main emphasis on the crucial need for establishing
new sites for waste processing and disposal. Several organizations
representing environmental interests, public health, and the
public at large will assist in conducting these forums.
In summary, I believe substantial progress has been
made in fulfilling the objectives of RCRA:
—we are well along in regulations development, although
we have not kept pace with the statutory schedule;
—apparently the great majority of States will assume
responsibility for operating authorized hazardous waste
programs;
—we think we have found a feasible approach to the
formidable inventory process under Subtitle D;
—financial assistance to State and local governments is
increasing, from $14.3 million in fiscal 1978 to a
total of $41.2 million in 1979;
—The Technical Assistance Panels Program is now fully
operational;
—resource recovery implementation should be given a
strong boost by the new financial assistance program,
as well as by the indirect pressure of land disposal
regulations; and
—intensive public participation in RCRA implementation
at the Federal level is a reality.
12
-------
That is the brighter side, but, of course, many problems
remain. A major issue facing us at the moment is what to do
about inactive disposal sites, like the one at Love Canal,
that pose risks to health and the environment. The resources
needed to adequately deal with this problem were hardly
contemplated in RCRA.
The most critical problem is that of finding sites for
waste processing and disposal facilities that are acceptable
to the local citizens. There is a real dilemma in the fact
that cases of damage from waste disposal both demonstrate
the need for improved disposal practices and, at the same
time, increase resistance to siting of new facilities. The
long-range hope is that the RCRA program will lead to con-
sistently acceptable disposal practices which will reassure
the public and reduce opposition to proposed facilities.
Unfortunately, the crunch is already with us. In addition
to the public education activity I have referred to, we are
exploring various approaches that might be taken to ease the
situation, and we would welcome ideas and recommendations
from those with experience with this problem.
In all our efforts, we rely heavily on interchange with.
organizations such as APWA for the access it gives us to the
knowledge, experience, and opinions of State and local
officials. It is clear that nothing is more essential to
successful implementation of RCRA than concerted action and
cooperation at the State and local levels.
sw-72.1
13
-------
y^ 72£ *\' >2g
~^^ * •F— /*~-\ *^r Jfc>^ 7 .T^w
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978
------- |